But, unfortunately, Chomsky gets Trump wrong as well. He wants us to believe that a Trump presidency will be the rebirth of fascism. I wouldn’t doubt there will be ugly and nasty aspects to Trumpism, if he is elected president, but fascism? Come on.

If anything, Trump’s moderate “America First” foreign policy looks likely to be less interventionist than the last 16 years of neoconservative warmongering, which includes the neocon-lite foreign policy of Barack Obama. Trump has rejected the neocons, and many neocons might well join Hilary Clinton. I can’t wait to see the expression on the anti-Bush Democrats’ faces when Bush’s neocon warmongers show up at the Democratic party convention cheering Hillary.

Meanwhile, Trump’s rejection of free trade, if implemented as president, will be good for America. If his economic policy turns out to be Reaganomics Mark II, with protectionism, large tax cuts, huge deficit spending, and infrastructure investment, then, yes, this will be better for America than more toxic neoliberalism from a Hillary Clinton administration, even if Trump engages in some Reaganite deregulation and tax cuts for the rich. It is true that Trump’s program is still neoliberal in some aspects, but he rejects enough of the present consensus to make it better than the current consensus form.

Closing off mass illegal and legal immigration will be good for America, and will allow a degree of labour market protectionism.

And here’s the crucial thing: a Trump victory and rejection of the current neoliberal consensus would probably pave the way for an honest and decent New Deal Democratic in the next presidential election cycle or the one after it.

13 comments:

Mostly agree. Trump is definitely not a fascist. He's just an old-fashioned anti-immigrant populist. The 'fascist' card is so pathetic.

BUT I don't believe Trump on anything he says. He could well get in bed with the neocons if he gets in power. Maybe he gets slighted by China and goes full bore in the South China Sea. That could be very dangerous. Or Putin pisses him off and he turns on Russia. I have no idea. He seems so flaky.

He is too unpredictable. He says whatever he wants whenever he wants. That's what I find scary about Trump.

Like when talking to Republicans he endorses gay marriage, and criticizes the NC bathroom law, because that's classic pandering? Because when talking to Republicans he says their last president should have been impeached and calls his policies a disaster, because that's classic pandering?

Like when talking to Republicans he endorses gay marriage, and criticizes the NC bathroom law, because that's classic pandering? Because when talking to Republicans he says their last president should have been impeached and calls his policies a disaster, because that's classic pandering?

It is classic pandering if you take the view that it's not necessarily Republicans he's pandering to in those instances you mention.

OTOH Trump recently shifted ground on taxing the rich and the minimum wage because he is hoping to pick up Sanders supporters. He made distinct overtures that sounded like Universal Healthcare in the beginning, but I invite you to go to his website and show me evidence of that. He claims to be a Christian then insists he's never sinned. He claims to be Pro-Life but constantly praises Planned Parenthood.

Do you know of any quality books or articles that discuss controlled immigration, it's distinction from mass immigration/open borders (and it's close link to the libertarian right) from refugees, etc? Almost a theoretically informed postkeynesian contribution to the economic affects of immigration? (These are all great points that you continue to discuss--too bad some on the left have such a hard time understanding such issues.)

Btw a friend who is in a tizzy about Trump was upset when I defended him. But I pointed out all the things I said about Trump I could say about Chomsky too. Doesn't mean I want to *elect* Chomsky when I say he has his virtues.

"He wants us to believe that a Trump presidency will be the rebirth of fascism." You're dumbing down what he's saying. Strawman attack on Chomsky. And his supposed refusal to critize "regressive left insanity" is completely false; he did it before it was hip (as you've noticed earlier) and does it all the time: but he cant speak about every topic in the world in every interview. Why theese inane attacks on Chomsky?